Does the 10th Amendment Movement Have Hope?

There has been a distinct increase in the rhetoric concerning the 10th Amendment over the last couple of months. I first started hearing real rumblings in about February. It began with the Economic Stimulus Bill and grew from there. While I haven’t verified it, I even heard that the Governor of Texas, while attending one of the Tax Day Tea Parties, used the word secession in his speech. There is no doubt that the federal government’s level of control over the states has grown over the last several years, and the stimulus bill added a significant amount of that in February. At this point I would have to say that the level of power held by the states is at an all time low. This, in my opinion, goes against the very ideals of the founders. Apparently I am not alone in this opinion…

There is a growing movement in this country for states to take back power and control from the federal government. The recent revival of the 10th Amendment on both popular and political landscapes has underscored the ever-present demarcation between liberty and statism. It is a fact that the federal government is out of control with spending, expansion, and exertion of control. Americans are becoming fed up with the federal government’s expansion of power, and states across the country are fighting back. At least 35 states have introduced legislation this year that seek to take back their power under the Tenth Amendment to regulate all matters not specifically given to the federal government by the Constitution. So let’s be clear about what we are discussing. The 10th Amendment says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I don’t think anyone will argue that if this is the definition, the federal government has way overstepped its bounds in terms of power. But where did this all begin? Where is the point that the Federal government began to take over and deny states the right to act as they are entitled under the Constitution?

Many point to the Civil War. The southern states, being oppressed by tariffs imposed by the northern states, made a move to either eliminate the tariffs or secede from the Union. Those of you reading on this site have seen the discussions already around this and are well aware that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery until the very end. The problem was that the US government refused to acknowledge the individual state’s rights to do exactly what the colonies did when England’s tariffs became too much to bear. And as many of you have pointed out, it culminated with Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, in which he stated “The United States” instead of “These United States”, and such it was from that point forward.

The New Deal, as we covered in the “March Towards Socialism” series, resulted in massive increases in the power of the Federal government over the states. There were many reasons for this and we won’t cover them all here. Not only did the programs under Roosevelt cause problems for state’s rights advocates, but Roosevelt also got his people into the courts. That is a whole story in itself, but the result was that the Roosevelt court changed things dramatically.

According to Martin Flaherty, a professor of constitutional law at Fordham Law School, “From 1937 to 1995 there is not one instance of the Supreme Court knocking back Congress. In the Constitution the interstate commerce clause gives Congress the right to regulate commerce between the states. That gives them a lot of power. There were questions of how far they can reach, but then comes the New Deal, and Roosevelt gets all these picks on the [Supreme] Court, and they come upon a theory whereupon congressional power is almost infinite.”

Since the time of Roosevelt, the court’s interpretation of the constitution has had the effect of dramatically decreasing the rights of the states. Those who agree on that side of the issue point to the argument that the size and scope of issues today precludes the state’s abilities to be able to operate with any sort of autonomy. I can see their point on some of the very big issues, like the economy. However, I tend to disagree on most things. For example, there seems to be no issue with individual states deciding on their own whether or not to allow gay marriage (of course by no issue, I mean so long as the people of the state vote for it. Voting against gay marriage results in claims of civil rights violations. See CA Proposition 8 ). If the age of drivers and the legal age for marriage can be regulated at the state level, why can’t who gets married?

The list of areas where the government has overstepped its bounds in regard to the states is long and steeped in failure, for the most part. TARP is a recent example. But that deals with the economy, so I am willing to listen to opposing thoughts on that. Public education is a big example. Federal control over public education is not mandated in the Constitution, but that has not stopped the federal government from putting their hands in that cookie jar (see: No Child Left Behind… talk about a failure). The stimulus bill is a GIANT example, hence why so many states are rejecting TARP and stimulus money.

In Utah, 67 percent of the state’s land is controlled by the federal government through wilderness preserves, limiting state leaders in their bid to fill government coffers through oil and natural gas drilling after Interior Secretary Ken Salazar cancelled 103,000 acres of leases this year. Federal government exercising control over state lands and not allowing that state to do what is in their best interests.

In fact, environmental laws and the seizing of land for the federal government are two of the biggest issues in terms of state’s rights today. For example, federal law stops farmers in Idaho from shooting wolves that are preying on their livestock. Endangered Species protection is used to prevent states from undertaking many endeavors that would relieve the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. It is a means of controlling the states, not protecting some bird or turtle.

Want a great example of how the Federal government usurps state’s rights? The drinking age is set by individual states. That is a fact. So how is it that the Federal government was able to have a “national” drinking age? Simply put, the federal government, which DOES control moneys allocated to the maintenance of interstate highways, told the states that if they didn’t raise it to 21 that the government would cut their available highway money. Federal extortion.

In fact, when you get right down to it, according to the tenth amendment, the Federal government is doing more that is unconstitutional than they are doing that is within their rights. The Federal government has no rights under the Constitution to set up the National Endowment for the Arts, Medicare, Social Security, or The Department of (UN)Education.

So many states have had enough, and are beginning to fight back. Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer recently signed into law a bill authorizing the state’s gun manufacturers to produce “Made in Montana” firearms, without seeking licensing from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Similar laws are being considered in Utah, Alaska, Texas and Tennessee. The Montana law will, of course, end up in the courts, where states’ rights folks hope judges will uphold constitutional rights. I wouldn’t hold my breath, given the trends since 1937 noted above.

“The balance of power between the states and the federal government is way out of whack,” said Georgia state Senator Chip Pearson.“The effect here is incalculable. Everything you do from the moment you wake up until you get to bed, there is some federal law or restriction.” In Georgia, the State Senate passed 43- to-1 a motion that said Georgia can declare any federal criminal law null and void unless the U.S. Constitution specifically allows Congress to outlaw that conduct. The only acts the Constitution allows Congress to prosecute are treason, counterfeiting, piracy, felonies on the high seas, international offenses and slavery. In this particular case, the motion didn’t pass the Georgia House.

Another state standing up to some of the federal government’s increase in power comes from Maine. The Maine State Legislature fought the Department of Homeland Security on the Real ID act, aBush-era law that will require states to issue federally regulated identification cards, complete with biometric data and stringent address checks (Hello Big Brother). Facing stiff resistance in Maine, the government decided to postpone their fight, and soon other states were fighting the same fight. The deadline for states to comply with Real ID has now been pushed back until 2011.

There are many who will claim that this is a Republican issue. In fact, my bet is that our resident liberals will come in and blast this article (while telling me I have no facts and live in la la land). But the reality is that it is an issue that belongs to everyone. George Bush was no better for state’s rights than any other President in the last 80 years. Reagan at least believed in state’s rights and limiting federal power, but could accomplish nothing with an opposition Congress. That puts him at the top of the list of least offensive to the 10th Amendment. President Barack Obama, in his short tenure thus far, is in my opinion, vying for the worst violator since FDR.

So the question of the day is whether or not the state’s have the ability to push back on the Federal government and reclaim some of their sovereign rights? Many are finally taking the step of turning down Federal money. And as noted above, 35 have some sort of legislation in the works or on the books. Are they wasting their time? It seems that many states are finally fed up, and the people are fed up too. So does this movement have any legs?

So that folks don’t get all upset with me, I have bolded the areas in this post that were found in an article written by James Osbourne. Thank you to PeterB for pointing out that I had forgotten to add this at the bottom of the article when I posted it at 4:45am, lol. You can find them in the following article.

Comments

I think the states can push back, I just worry how determined they are. We are in a whole world of hurt with this cap and trade stuff breathing down our necks. This ‘green push’ is more than anything a money making venture and the Feds will be taking much property for their green grids. I get sick to my stomach with all the things happening. I hope the states are able to get somewhere with this but I have little faith, politicians are politicians. States’ rights is about the only bright spot and hope I hold onto anymore…

I do not mean to rain on your parade, but I do not hold much hope for the states rights issues because so few of them are actually going to do anything with the movement. The NE region of this country are lock, stock, and barrel in the hip pocket of the Democratic\Statist party. You can add the West coast as the same thing. Here in MD, you have one of the most liberal states east of the Mississippi. The only place I see this taking hold is in the deep South and far West. I do not think that will be enough to make a difference.

Actually there are some small pockets of hope in the northeast. New Hampshire has been working legislation that would invoke the 10th amendment. Rhode Island, as MadMom can attest, saw the largest demonstration in their history for the Tax Day Tea Party. Maine I mentioned above in the article. There are some states that are far too blue to take action, such as Massachusetts and Vermont. But there is some hope up north.

New Hampshire also has the Free State Project. If they can get 20,000 people to move to the state the group will take over the state legislature, negotiate with Congress to follow the Constitution, and seceed if necessary.

I will not argue with MadMom (one does not argue with their mothers :-)) about RI. However, having family in the other states you mentioned, I do not see their movements towards the 10th Amendment being strong enough to rattle the Feds.

Purgatory, AKA work, is at the soon to be former Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC). Home is outside of Frederick MD.

I think some states do have the ability to push back the Federal Government. Texas, for example, has no deficit and isn’t dependent upon the Federal Government. On the other hand, the state of MI is broke and was planning on using the Federal money to balance the state budget — they are dependent upon the Fed.

Texas has a great opportunity to create an environment welcoming to international investment and trade. While other states are looking for anything they can grab to make up for their “right now” shortfalls, Texas will be in a position to deal for future earnings and tweak the rules to suit such growth.

If Big Brother would stick to the basics (national defense, federal highway system and infratructure) we would all be better off. All their excesses have resulted in is billions in additional taxes and fees. I’d challenge anyone one on the left to support a position against the 10th Amendment.

I would be shocked if this movement gained any steam at all. Most states will not put their necks out like this, no matter what it might be for. I would like to see the states for once solve their own issues. If your state is in serious debt, then fix it. Dont assume that the FEDs are going to give you money. Hard to watch sometimes. The people of each states have to start making noise if anything is going to change for the better.

This is a great post US, but a difficult question. Can the States push back The Feds? Not unless enough of them come together to enforce it. Since, and RWB says, NE and the Liberal West Coast are going to side with the Feds since they need Federal Dollars. The only chance the States have to be effective in their opposition is for them to be unified, or at least a distinct majority. I’d say at least three quarters of them.

If just a few of them try, the Federal Government and Obama will just ignore them or steam roll them.

In my opinion you are correct. It will take a concerted effort by a majority of the states to reign in the Federal Government. The states need to pick their fights carefully as not to appear to be the states of “no” as the Republican party has been branded. The states need to refuse Federal dollars. In many ways most states are like welfare recipients…they rely on the Fed to keep them going. As long as that happens, there will be no traction gained with regard to the states retaining their power.

The fed has the states by the nose hairs when it comes to money for highway construction/repairs, fed forks over $10 to every $1 that the state of Alabama spends. Some states will have a hard time weaning themselves off the federal trough; they (fed) are just too intertwined into state affairs.

That is the ultimate challenge for the states…to wean themselves off the Federal teat. You are absolutely correct except I am not sure what hairs they have a hold on. It is ironic that we keep saying “Federal Dollars”…where do those dollars actually come from…the states!

I don’t think States should necessary attempt to ween themselves off the federal dollars i think sense the money was spent unconstitutionality the State has no obligation to uphold federal law in what they actually do with the money.

I also think States could bypass the more generalized blackmail problem by doing what Colorado almost did back in the 1990 using state law to forcefully rout all Federal Taxes thou A state government agency then when the federal government cuts off highway funds or what ever the State deducts their cost from its tax contribution.

That will not only get the federal government flaming mad creating exactly the kind of fight we need but it will enable the State government to stand on its own two feet.

The key is making the price of Federal Enforcement of its will too high for the federal government to do it. That means national guard risking bloodshed unfortunately, and a firestorm of Constitutional complains with a fully enumerated list of Grievances and usurpation the State has been unconstitutionally made subject to.

The State has to appear nationally and internationally as an agreed and wrongfully raped party as it is, justifying what it now does to defend itself.

1 more thing, We need more than 1 state doing this, we want several States doing it at the same time!
We need a deceleration of Independence sort of thing listing the Serous usurpation of our rights by the Federal government to show the world what we have endured by the abusive Federal Government and bring them to our side.

The Federal Government needs to be publicly embarrassed by its clearly overstepping and ignoring of its Constitutional contract at the expedience of the people and their states.
So embarrassed that no one in the United States would support taking further actions against theses states, and instead DEMAND that they up hold their end of the Constitutional bargain. We mean to expose them, for what they are and what terrible things they have done to us to usurp our rights, and vacate any legitimate clam they have to authority.
The liberals in charge of the government care a lot about their image they will back down, or it will be a political catastrophe for them.

How can they clam to the world to be the legitimate rulers when their people and states are in a state of rebellion under clearly just complains about their usurpation of their rights.

the scary thing about this is if you read our own Deceleration of independence, you could almost clam that is in reference too the federal government today, only we are much further down the path to tyranny.

According to libertarian Judge Andrew Napolitano, it began when Federalist President John Adams appointed John Marshall to the Supreme Court on March 3, 1801, one day before he left office. In his most famous decision, Marbury vs. Madison, Marshall gave the federal judiciary the power to rule on the constitutionality of both statutory law and the behavior of the executive branch.

“This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle that it can exercise only the powers granted to it would seem too apparent to have required to be enforced by all those arguments which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge. That principle is now universally admitted. But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise as long as our system shall exist.

“In discussing these questions, the conflicting powers of the general and state governments must be brought into view, and the supremacy of their respective laws, when they are in opposition, must be settled.

“If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this-that the government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action. This would seem to result necessarily from its nature. It is the government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all; and acts for all. Though any one state may be willing to control its operations, no state is willing to allow others to control them. The nation, on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind its component parts.

“But this question is not left to mere reason: the people have, in express terms, decided it by saying, this Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, and by requiring that the members of the state legislatures, and the officers of the Executive and Judicial departments of the states shall take the oath of fidelity to it.

“The government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers is supreme; and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

…”We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transecended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”

I think we should put fire under our represents asses and get them rallying for the 10th amendment because this would be a small step in trying to obtain our state sovereignty back. We have to take every small step possible to ensure a future for out children. I’ve have been very pessimistic lately because I didn’t believe that there were truly people awake about what is really going on but I want to share a message that was given to me yesterday…the whole system that we live in drills into us that were powerless, that we are weak, that our society is evil and worthless, etc. and so forth. But now I know that is a BIG FAT LIE! We are powerful, beautiful, extraordinary. There is no reason that we cannot understand who we truly are and where we are going. Its no reason why the average individual cannot be fully EMPOWERED! We are incredibly powerful beings because we are all the children of GOD.This is a fight between good and evil and good will prevail if we get outside the tube and the conditioning (BW) that we are hynoptized into today. I think I spent 27 years of my lif trying to become something, I wanted to become good at things. I wanted to be good at school (undergrad. and grad.), have good grades, have a good job, ect. and everything I have done or do, have perfected it. But I am not ok with my life the way it is…I’ve gotten good at things but I realized, what if I have the game all wrong, if the game was to find out what I already was not what I can become? Think about that….

But this is very important…AUDIT THE FEDS; EXPLOIT THEM! I hope that you all write to your congressman and let them know that HR 1207 and S 604 needs to be passed. These 2 bills are important as the FEDS and the “elite” bankers (including but not limited to Bildenberg Group, Trilateral Group, and Council of Foreign Affairs, UN, ect.) are the reason that we are in this fundamental mess that they have created to take our rights, liberties, and sovereignty away.

Ron Paul is 1 of a few representatives that is putting pressure on Big Brother. Ron Paul wants the FED RESERVE to be audit and then end it.
Text of H.R. 1207: Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1207.
This bill now has nearly 280 cosponsors, with support from both Republicans and Democrats.

I don’t believe that the Federal Government’s usurpation of States Rights BEGAN at or after The Civil War, but the Feds damn sure ended the States Sovereignty there.

Before the war, the South was feeling pretty picked on by the North and the Federal Government. What with the unfair tariffs and industry, the South was being slowly relegated to minority status in America’s Government. The North, through the Feds, were continuously telling the Southern States what they could and could not do.

So the South secceeded and declared for Nationhood. Of course the Feds could not allow these States to do the same thing the colonies had done to the British. Revolt! So we went to war and some 700,000 Americans died so that the Federal Government could wax supreme over the Nation.

This was not the start of Federal Supremacy. It was just the beginning of the Feds arrogance that they were the supreme law of the land and that the States had no say so over how we as a nation would be run.

I think even the Northern States were suprised by how much power the Federal Government gained. By the time the South began to get their feet underneath them, the Federal Lackeys were in charge of their State Governments due to reconstruction. I believe that reconstruction had more to do with the South’s undying animosity towards the Federal Government than any other single thing that the Feds have done to the States.

Will we take our Nation back from the Fed? We should at least try. Lying down and simply taking what we are without a fight is just wrong. Think of just how much difference there is between the Colonies with King George and The States right now with the Federal Government. It was tyranny then and it is tyranny now. The only diffence I see is that the Federal Government is supposed to be our Representatives.

They have all lost sight of this in their desires to please their opposing Parties. When are they going to get the fact that we are tired of the finger pointing and blame shifting. I no longer see this as a Party issue. I am an Independent, no matter what that voting card at the Courthouse says. If the VDLG gets going enough I will gladly switch allegiance to them. But I sure as hell ain’t going to be a Republican or Democrat anymore as neither one represent me.

I hope it does not come down to a matter of seccesion again. God help and be with us all if it does. But IF that were to happen, like my Gr. Grandpa, I will have to stick with my States.

I have wondered if the Civil War was “legal”. Instead of bullets, why was it not fought with lawyers? Found this:

In Texas v. White (1869), the Court held in a 5–3 decision that Texas had remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. It further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were “absolutely null”. However, the decision did allow some possibility of divisibility
“through revolution, or through consent of the States.”[1][2]

If this movement is to have any hope of any success, it will have to be done very slowly, over decades or even centuries, the same way states’ powers were usurped by the Feds. Even then, I don’t have much hope.

Could something cataclysmic change all of this and dramatically speed the pace? Maybe, but I don’t know what it might be. Downgrading the AAA status of U.S. Treasury bonds? What do you think might be such a big event that states could reclaim their rightful powers more quickly?

It would be interesting to see just how much pushing back a state can do with regard to things like the EPA’s supposed “findings” on CO2 as a pollutant. If that could be held back at the state level even for 2 or 3 years, that would lend that particular state a huge influx in those companies most adversely affected and a substantial growth potential.

The problem is money. If the federal government stops paying for things for the states the federal government can lower federal taxes, then the states have to raise state taxes to make up for their lost money. This leads me to thinking it is like an old west duel, except that whoever draws first the states always get screwed.

As far as I know, the federal government does not give up power and the system is set up for them to dictate their own power.

The only way it can be done is for the budget to start giving the states all the money they paid in federal taxes back to the states. That way every state gets its fair share of what they paid.

Government, if you don’t like the problems we make, just wait until you see our solutions.

The government does not “pay” for anything. It shifts the citizenry’s wealth away from them who posses such and into the hands of those who do not. As for “The only way it can be done is for the budget to start giving the states all the money they paid in federal taxes back to the states.” it would never happen as your most populated states are also your “have not” states. I would wager tracing the total amounts of currency shifted on the federal level from one place to another be that in actual dollars, job creation, infrastructure projects or the warehousing of the various federal agencies themselves is neigh impossible but the lions share exists where they are needed both economically AND politically. Those states that do well will never be allowed to keep what they earned/saved as a very real form of tit-for-tat “share the wealth” is/was/will be always in existence for the less thrifty to sup from. You see where this is heading? Why be a frugal state when by doing without you are only feeding the addiction of those who deserve to never do without.

I’ll stick with some high level points to ponder here. While I am not certain if this falls neatly into a liberal v. conservative camp or Federal v. States rights camp I offer:

1. Uniformity of enforcement – USW references as an example of Federal extortion the so-called National legal drinking age. Let’s say for example, that in line with the 10th amendment we unbind highway dollars from the drinking age and put this solely and completely in the hands of the States. Is there a negative effect to doing this? How many different legal drinking ages could we end up with if we do not have a unified age requirement? How would this impact businesses? Privacy? Law enforcement? I know the tendency here is to equate anything in the uniformity bucket that is not explicitly granted via the U.S. Constitution as nothing short of socialism, Lord knows that we’ve had enough posts that make that case. But this example provides, I think, a decent litmus test of what a change would/could look like.

2. “A” problem of States v. States – it seems a relatively easy argument to suggest that as in the case of Utah, the Federal government is way out of line and overstepping boundaries. However, there are ample examples of where, when there is no cross-boundary governance, very dangerous things happen when there are competing interests. I would fear the day that the Mississippi, or the Ohio, or the Snake, or the Colorado (well – this one may be moot) are turned into what is happening to the Mekong River – an immense natural resource being carved up more and more upstream so localized needs can be addressed w/o considering a bigger picture.

My concluding thought is that I’m not sure if USW is presenting a purist concept here – if it is – it is going to be full of holes and amazingly shortsighted and ill conceived. I’m still a fan of effective and right sized government – does the betterment of the whole sometimes outweigh the needs of the individual?

“The betterment of the whole outweighs the needs of the individual” is a typical argument for increasing the size, scope, and power of the federal government. It could also be re-written as “The betterment of the whole supersedes the RIGHTS of the individual” which means the same thing, but does a better job of showing how that statement goes AGAINST the founding principles of this country.

There does exist in the Preamble of the Constitution the phrase “promote the general welfare”. The modern interpretation of this seems to be that the Federal Government must do all it can in order to provide for those who cannot or will not provide for themselves. I believe that a more accurate interpretation of the intention of that statement would be that the government should do what it can in order to promote the ability of the individual to succeed.

I think by any reasonable definition, the state of the people currently being supported by the government has no resemblance whatsoever to individual success, nor do these programs do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to promote individual initiative or success.

As to the States being allowed to regulate themselves, the Federal Government basically said “go ahead and regulate anything that goes on within your own borders, but anything that involves more than one State will be regulated by the Federal Government.” The Federal Government then proceeded to find a way to rationalize that VIRTUALLY EVERY ACTIVITY that goes on in one State has a direct or indirect impact on other States, therefore, virtually everything should be regulated by the Federal Government. This was a very well-constructed end-around on the 10th Amendment.

After all, if the drinking age in Idaho were lowered to 18, people between 18 and 21 from surrounding States would go into Idaho to buy legal alcohol and then transport it across State lines for consumption, which would then be illegal.

So yes, there are problems with individual States having different regulations, but that is the price you pay for a Constitutional Republic.

As I read it, the preamble contains objectives, not powers. The Federal Government’s powers are limited to those enumerated. If the objectives can’t be achieved with the enumerated powers, the government is obliged to request revisions in the constitution to get more powers.

Congress is granted authority under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution to “pay the debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” The meaning of this Taxing and Spending Clause provoked controversy as early as 1792. One interpretation is that it gives Congress broad power to legislate in the public interest. Such a view is inconsistent with the concept of a limited constitution, however. A second view, promoted by Alexander Hamilton, suggested that Congress’s power to tax and spend for the general welfare was additional to its other powers. A third view, represented by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, argued that the phrase was simply a summary or general description of the specific powers and that it gave Congress no additional power.

The word “welfare” didn’t even mean then what it means today. Today’s meaning has been derived from that clause as government has expanded its own role. Originally the word “welfare” that we use today was given the name “dole”. THAT never appears in the constitution. Welfare simply meant well-being, or in other words, the right to life, liberty, property would be protected. It never meant that people would be provided for by the government. The very concept of government providing for all its citizens is ludicrous and it has been amply proved by various communist countries that such a model of government is in direct opposition to the interests of the people.

If I tell you a secret, will you promise not to tell?
Legal drinking age and uniformity of enforcement? I am a Episcopalian, which is a liberal Catholic. We drink real wine during communion. So when will big brother break down the doors and carry us all off? I hope you don”t turn us in, but will forgive you (we’re like that, not “bitter”).

But tell me something, is there not a principle being violated here? The “land of the free”, etc., my child, do I not get to determine when and what he drinks, what he reads and so on.

Everything written here comes from my twisted mind, did not read it on FOX.
It may be JAC’s fault I am looking at things that seem counter to my “principals”, but the thoughts are my own.

Before long LOI, the United States will be like Logan’s Run. Our children will have numbers and we won’t raise them. They will be raised in Government Nurseries. And our parents and us and everyone else will be “put down” at 30.

Well how else will they balance the Social Security budget? When it was started, people in general were not supposed to live long enough to collect. And old people use an unfair amount of resources.
It will be our duty to report to a “health clinic” for “reprocessing”.

80…LOL! We want be able to retire. We will die as slaves, working like “busy bees” while Big Brother whips our asses unless we wake up and join the fight between good and evil. Good will prevail if we can wake up and come together and fight the evil.

You have identified another key conflict of principal. By what “right” does the government make us retire? They decide how much to take from us for SS, and then how much and when we may receive our own money, if they haven’t already given it away to someone who did not work as hard or smart.

I’m not sure if it is the opposite. Let the odd number of race fans that display the flag do so. Its the track’s choice to accept or ban the flag and that is not protected speech. A city parade and a NASCAR event are not the same thing.

If Congress can’t pass laws abridging the freedom of speech, how do private citizens promoting a public event suddenly have that right? A PUBLIC event, is just that, Public. If a Veterans group, chooses to have a protest, pay for the permit, and charges people to attend the event, on a city street, the city cannot deny freedom of speech at the event, can they now?

Ah but you have the NAACP pushing their agenda and not NASCAR itself. So once again its the wants of the few NAACP over the many NASCAR fans? Didn’t you just post about the few taking one for the many? I’m guessing that’s entirely biased by media access? That’s the case, I’d put my money on the First Nation’s lesbian community. Slavery has nothing on genocide.

I think Ray has it right here. I know that people are protective of their right to fly the flag if they so desire. In this case, there is no one telling you that you cannot fly your flag. Take this down to your lowest level. The speedway is a privately owned piece of property. They offer a service, the race, at a cost. At its most basic, there is a contract between the owners of this private property and the attendees of a race. That contract states that you can come on to their property and view the race if you pay x amount and follow their rules. You are free to follow their rules and attend or not follow their rules and not attend. They are not taking away your right to fly the flag. They are saying that if you choose to attend their event, you will do it under their rules.

If you owned a bar, you would have the right to turn away customers that had a shirt on that you found offensive or that you felt your other patrons would find offensive. If you had people coming over to your house, you would have that same right. In either case is the person’s right to wear the shirt in question. But you get to determine what is acceptable on the property that you own. This is just a larger version of the same concept.

I smell a trap – I think they can define any legal business practice they want – which to me means they don’t have to enact anything prohibiting the Confederate flag. I’m sure someone can find a wrinkle somewhere that shows the track is getting government money for something and therefor the rules change. Asinine.

I agree with Ray and USW on this one. This site for example, reserves the right to ban people or comments that are disrespectful. On his private site USW can limit speech. He cannot however, prevent someone from starting their own site and speaking any way they wish.

I have the right to say anything I want anywhere I want. I have the right to fly a flag of my choosing. That is my right to free speech and expression.

The private property owner has the right to ask me to leave if he doesn’t like my speech or expression. That is his right to association and his right to protect his property (his business).

We all have these rights and the Constitution has nothing to do with it.

The Constitution simply affirms that the Federal Govt and State govts have no power to infringe upon these rights. As such we have “freedom of speech” which is naturally given and we have “protected speech” which is constitutionaly protected.

And for you who like to lean on the founder’s view I would like to point out that the Protection of speech was aimed solely at political speech and public criticizm of the govt. It was not thier intent to open up the can of “freedom of speech” worms we now have.

Now I’ll let you digest that a little while before we serve desert.
JAC

Ray, there’s always some a-hole out there all set and ready to do away with your freedom of speech if it offends them even if it is in your own YARD.

And BTW, I already know the 1st Amend does not apply to private property. I was just focused on the big mountain being made out of the tiny molehill. Sorry I didn’t say that they could only fly it in their own property lines.

Am with you – I’m a big NASCAR fan. I think its all a crock of crap – most tracks you’d be hard pressed to find a flag as such. FWIW I have gone to the Blue Horizon, a boxing venue in the heart of North Philadelphia – a dangerous place for a guy like me at dark. A shame when I had to ask a guy what ‘white parasite’ meant (emblazoned on his shirt).

If my wife weren’t expecting any day now I’d be down at Dover firing up the grill, sucking down cold ones and getting in touch with my inner redneck. While I can do the black tie thing with the Corporate C-Suckers (sorry, trying to be clean) and sip martinis (ick!), I gravitate to shorts, a filthy greasy NASCAR cap, a grill and a cooler packed with ice cold brew.

I much prefer dirt tracks but can/will watch a race anyplace anytime. An August evening in Bristol is magical, as is a mid-Summer Sunday in Dover or Pocono (prefer short tracks to superspeedways). My loyalty will always be with #3 so I will root for 88 and pray that firing Tony Jr. was (gasp) the right thing to do.

The Speedway has (should have) the right to deny your entry to their property for any reason they wish.

Now, Immoral Law gets in the way, so they can’t say they’ve denied anyone due to sex,race,religion, political affiliation, blahblabhlahblah… so they can make up another reason – like having a hole in your shirt.

I can’t seem to post the link I want, so I’ll write as best I can. Most major events (sporting etc) are promoted and/or sponsered by local/state/federal government in some form. I’ve never seen a NASCAR event where the Governor or Mayor or some other politician did not attend to promote the event, as it brings home tons of money. Once government becomes involved, in any way, that event’s patrons are protected under the 1st Amendment. When the US flag is presented by our military at such an event, that event qualifies. I googled and found the Federal Law, but my computer is having a bad hair day!

Ray, In some ways your correct, without government involvement, the owner has final authority. I did want to add one thing, if your ticket to an event is taxed (what isn’t taxed these days), doesn’t that constitute government involvement?

Involvement? Nah – not really. I also think chucking a couple of bucks to the track or giving leeway on utilities, traffic control and the like doesn’t count either. The legal owner of the track and the race is not the gov. As a lifelong fan I guess they’ll outlaw conf flags as soon as they outlaw smoking (uh – never).

Hey USW, I just wanted to point out that if you are going to use almost an entire article by another person http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/26/tenth-amendment-movement-aims-power-states/
as the basis of your entire post, I have no problem with that, but it might be good to site the article as the source of the majority of your information for the day just to avoid any potential problems. Not trying to be picky here, but my 7th grade social studies teacher was a real PITA, and on our 12-page research paper she made us do, citing sources especially when used extensively was a must.

As to the topic at hand, I hope that the current State’s Rights movement has some legs. At least if a good number of the States attempt to assert their Constitutional Rights more people might see how unconstitutional the behavior of the federal government is when it moves to squash all of these State’s rights movements.

The article was not written by Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly, although it DID appear on Fox News. As far as the notion of “Fixed News” you could equally say that CNN, MSNBC and their ilk are fixed as well, so I don’t really get what you are trying to say there… If you are arguing that Fox News is the only news source that reports with any sort of bias, you are living in a fantasy world. Is it your opinion that if the article in question had come from MSNBC.com and been written by Keith Olbermann it would have been fine?

No – it would not have been fine and I know it would never happen here (‘liberal’ copying/theft from MSNBC or CNN or Perez Hilton). A complete lack of objectivity (read: no openness of mind) makes it a tough situation to have reasoned debate in. How many other posts were lifted all/partially from Fox News? I just lost a ton of respect for this board.

Why lose respect? The Article is just about the 10th Amendment and do we think it has legs. I have seen the same thing said in more than one article on this issue.

I can say for sure one thing though. It’s hard as hell to come up with a debatable subject EVERY single day of the week. If USW took a few liberties with the article, so what? Now you have the opportunity to debate the issue.

I don’t like being told that “research” is done to explore issues when it is blatant theft of someone’s work and feels like a thinly veiled attempt to promote a select line of thinking. Clever indeed – but utter b.s. and I fell for it.

If you think that this site contains “thinly veiled” attempts to promote a select line of thinking, you are pretty much wrong.

USWeapon and the rest of us on this site have no problem telling each other EXACTLY what our line of thinking is, with no veils attached. I strongly suspect that USWeapon liked this article from Fox and thought that State’s Rights would be a fantastic topic for debate here, and perhaps he didn’t have a lot of time last night to do his usual research into the topic. I don’t particularly have any problem that he used the article extensively, but I do have a problem that he did not site the source of the material.

If you were doing a guest post on a Friday night and you said, “Hey, I read this article on MSNBC and I am going to post it here with my comments interspersed so we can debate the topic.” I would be fine with that as well, as long as you put it in those terms and were clear about the source.

Thank you for the support Peter. I cannot claim that I was lazy. I simply forgot to add my link at the bottom. Your analysis otherwise was correct. I read the article yesterday morning and throughout the day thought it would be a good topic for debate.

You want it both ways. You want me to go out and research and find information that is pertinent to the topic at hand rather than just writing an “opinion”. And then when I find said information and include it in my article, you “lost a ton of respect” for me.

I do not think that any significant number of posts by USW were “lifted” from Fox News. I read a lot of the opinion columns and political columns on Fox on most days, and this is the first one that I caught that could be said to be “lifted” from Fox.

Also, just because something is taken directly from Fox News (or MSNBC or CNN or any other source for that matter) does not invalidate it as a topic for debate. In fact, this particular topic is perfect for debate on this blog site. I just would have preferred if the source of the material for the post had been cited since the article was used almost in its complete form.

If I, or anyone else, were to use an article from Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, The Heritage Foundation, or any other source, it is my opinion that that would not invalidate the topic as a source of debate; however, the source of the information should be clear, regardless of where it is coming from. That was my point.

“There ya go again” – my point is that objectivity goes out the window. There is a reason I avoid most liberal blogs like the plague – they are usually re-hashes of the same 2-3 liberal views/sources. Don’t pretend to be research when its nothing more than regurgitating what you read on Fox News.

As you can now see above Ray, the bolded sections are what I “lifted” from the article. How exactly would you have me do research that you demand other than to go out and find relevant information to the subject and include it? Because those sections were from Fox doesn’t not make objectivity go out the window. Are the sections from Fox INCORRECT or INACCURATE? I read several articles in opposition to the state’s rights issue as well, I included some over-reaching thoughts from them in this article, such as the main point that they all seemed to make that the economy was too big an issue to not be handled by the federal government. I am tiring of the constant claims that because I have an opinion, I am not objective. I am willing to listen when opposing points of view present me with them. Unfortunately, it seems as though those on the left here are too busy telling me how shitty a job I am doing and how biased I am and how little I know. This has thus far left them with no time to present me with any actual information that shows me where I am wrong. I am willing to listen. When will you start attacking my positions instead of attacking me so that I have something to listen to.

Give me a break Terry. See – I know that USW has spent extensive time doing Graduate level work so he understands the importance of integrity in writing. In this case he dropped the ball and I over-reacted a bit. I just know that as someone who is contrary to a lot of what is written here that I have to use extra doses of skepticism and use my google/dogpile searches more frequently to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Since the subject was about possible future events, how else does one research, other than gathering opinions on the subject? Since opinions on this matter rarely are seen on the other news sites, I see it as a good start. Since the title of the article was in the form of a question, concerning the future, factual research is impossible, as the future hasn’t occurred yet! Had a Psych teacher tell us this in class in 10th grade, so I’ll credit him, whatever his name was!

Thanks for catching that. I finished the article at about 4:45am and was sleepwalking through it by the end. I had every intention of posting that link at the bottom of the article as I usually do, and simply forgot. I appreciate you catching it as I wouldn’t want the folks from Fox thinking I was taking information without giving credit.

To all,

I apologize for not posting the link there at the bottom originally. Those who read regularly have probably noticed that there are times I pull information from various sources. As a habit (and a look back at past articles where this was done will bear this out), I add a link to those articles at the bottom of my article. In this case, I used a couple of quotes (in which case I gave credit in the article to those that said them) and some instances of states rights violations. I went back and bolded the areas that were in that article so that folks can see that this was not just some copy and paste of the article in question. It was the use of information that backs up my opinion or informs others reading this article of things happening in regard to my opinion.

There is a fine line to be walked in writing a blog like this. On one hand there are folks who demand that I provide information to back up my opinion. If I don’t provide information backing up my position, I am a conservative hack who presents opinions and nothing more, and I am therefore, according to them, writing worthless material. On the other hand, I spend about 4 hours a day on each article, and read roughly 20-40 articles on each one trying to find different opinions and relevant information. I am sure that some of the things that I read stick in my head and end up, at least in some context, finding themselves in my own form in my articles. It puts me in a damned if I do, damned if I don’t situation. This is not a college term paper. If I take significant information from an article, I do my best to add the link at the bottom. There might be a time or two that I forget. As you have all seen, I tend to be writing these articles well past when I should be in bed, and this was nothing more than an honest omission, corrected when I was awake and alert.

I do not claim that every single thought I present in my articles are mine. I often use quotes from people that I find in articles when I think they have said something relevant. I almost always change the font color and state who said it. That is not passing off another’s thoughts as my own. In the article above, I discussed states rights, and I presented some things that I found while reading articles that were in support of what I was saying. Again, I didn’t claim to come up with the Montana bill, the Utah issue, or the fact that Idaho farmers are having issues. That is not passing off other’s thoughts as my own. It is finding relevant data to the subject, and offering it to readers who don’t have time to read the 30 articles that I read. At any point, if someone has a question as to where I got information, just ask and I will do my best to retrace my thoughts and provide answers.

The point of my articles is to provide information to its readers and begin the debate of different points of view on the topics presented. I present my opinions. I back them up with data I find out there. Then I let all of you discuss what I presented and the concepts I put forth. As I said, this is not a college term paper. It is a forum for debate. You can’t debate without information. If I am forced to add a reference list for every single article that I write, then so be it. But it is not fair to claim that I am merely stealing information. I am gathering what I can find and offering it as part of the debate. I don’t make money on this site. I write on my time so that we can have discussion.

As for the sources. This time it was a Fox News article where I found some of my information. My sources can be anything. It just so happened that this time it was Fox. In this case it is because, like the tea parties, the other major news sources refuse to cover state’s rights because they see it as a conservative cause. To claim that, because I used Fox for information, I am a thinly veiled agenda, is erroneous at best. The source of the information is irrelevant to my opinion. I take it where I find it. If it is CNN or Fox, I don’t care. If you have issue with the ACCURACY of what I provide, that is relevant, the source is not. The second you start disregarding information because you dislike the source instead of because it is inaccurate, you have relegated yourself to close-minded living. And I feel sorry for those that do this. You don’t like Fox News, fine, don’t read there. But tell me where the information that is bolded above as coming from Fox News is inaccurate because of its source.

Again, I apologize for any misunderstanding, and hope that you can forgive my 4:00am mistake.

USW, If that’s the worst thing that happens today, it’s a good day. I brought up a article about flying a flag, and it went haywire and now I forgot the point I was going to make, LOL. We’re all human and shit happens!

To be honest, I only caught this because I had read the same article on Fox News yesterday and when I read your post it mirrored that article quite a bit (I got that, “wait, I just read this somewhere” feeling and went back to Fox and found the article).

I don’t personally have any issue with you using ANY article from ANY source as a topic of debate or as the main source of your information on a given topic.

My only concern was the lack of citation in this case, and since I know you finish these up at some ridiculous hour of the morning when the sane should be sleeping, I figured that it was likely an honest mistake.

If you found something in the New York Times that you happened to think was a good subject for discussion and debate, I wouldn’t care about that either as long as it was cited as the source of your material.

Usually, your posts are a mix of a lot of different ideas and facts from a lot of different sources, and are clearly written primarily by you, in which case I don’t feel you need to cite yourself or the 30-40 sources of information you may have used, unless you are using direct quotes from a particular source.

I most certainly agree that these are not meant to be term papers, so exhaustive footnotes with citations of all of your sources would be completely ridiculous. In this particular case it just seemed to me that a lot of the material for today came from that specific Fox article.

And you were absolutely correct to point it out Peter. I appreciate it as I am highly sensitive to any claim of plagiarism. As I said, it is a fine line between backing up a position with some facts and realities and ripping off someone else’s ideas. I try to never take another’s idea, but I often try to find facts and information that I think are relevant to my thoughts or opinions.

A decent amount of the information came from that Fox article, as the bolded sections above show. I think that it is clear that that it was a matter of information coming from that article is backing my position as opposed to my opinion coming specifically from that article. I tried not to claim the thoughts as my own thoughts, as all the sections used were simply factual statements (here are some things that states are doing) or quotes (here are some things people are saying, with credit to the speaker). Do you think that is a legit statement, or did too much info come from that article for me to be able to claim this article as my own? I ask that in all honesty of everyone who read it. I don’t want people to think what Ray apparently has decided and abandoned the site as a result of. If what I did was too much then I will change the way I research and present information. I hope everyone will chime in with their thoughts. I feel bad that people think I am a plagiarist.

In this specific case, I had personally read the Fox article the day before reading yours, and as I said, I really got the “I have read this somewhere before” feeling and had to go back and find the Fox article and re-read it.

So far, this particular topic has been the only instance where that has happened.

I did not necessarily think that you were plagiarizing the information, it just seemed that a lot of your material came from that particular source this time, so I did feel that it needed proper citation.

I for one don’t care if you have posts that are 100% your own opinion, a mix or your opinions and facts from various sources, or even occasionally just a simple, “Hey, I read this over at XYZ.com and I don’t have a whole lot of time to post today, everyone go read it and let’s discuss it here!”

Any of that is fine with me (although I wouldn’t recommend resorting to that last option TOO often, we will think you are getting lazy :))

If Ray decides to abandon us because he is now convinced that your are simply “The Mouthpiece of Fox News” that is unfortunate. I thought he was intelligent enough to know better than that.

As far as plagiarism goes, my personal feeling is that you liked the Fox article, it resonated with you on this particular subject, you used it extensively in formulating your post for today, and then didn’t post a link to it because you wanted to try to get at least 2 hours of sleep.

From the age of about 10 until the age of 21, my parents allowed me to have a small glass of wine (the real stuff, not the sparkling grape juice crap) on special occasions such as Thanksgiving, Easter, and Christmas.

Should the Government have the right to send my parents to jail because they did this?

It is my opinion that if families were allowed to teach responsible behavior regarding the consumption of alcohol (and lots of other issues as well) to their children rather than having to comply with some arbitrary age requirement, there would be a lot fewer problems with irresponsible drinking in both “minors” and adults.

This is a clear case of the government assuming that the people are incapable of teaching their children to behave responsibly, so the government chooses to intervene which in turn creates more problems than it solves (as usual).

If there were NO legal drinking age whatsoever, would there still be problems? SURE! However, I doubt the problems would be more severe than the problems our society has with alcohol currently.

Its been at least a year where I saw an article on FOX (full disclosure Ray) where a father at a ball game purchased drinks and hot dogs for his son. Son took a drink, said it tasted funny, spectator called the cops, father was arrested. He was served beer by mistake, took it from his son when figuring out the mistake, but had to explain that to a judge.

And its funny how the world works. Germany has no drinking age, any kid can order a beer at McDonald’s. But they have a lower rate of alcoholism than the US.

Good game sir – so – you have ‘all’ your rights from birth – I assume by this you mean you can do anything you want at any place at any time. How is it decided when you may exercise them? Are you rights dangerous in your own hand without any guidance, direction or rules?

Another concurrent strategy would be to preemptively assail State politicians to not ask for Federal Bailout of State shortfalls, and instead demand direct access to Federal Income Tax attributed to State citizens.

In other words, support the State in seizing Federal Income Tax at source. Make a law that requires all Federal Income Tax to be deposited into the ‘care’ of the State.

This would be incredibly aggravating and potentially dangerous to peace – but it would be decisive.

BF…I was waiting for someone to put the link to taxes on this…..the Articles of Confederation completely deprived the Feds from being able to tax. The Constitution gave it back….thus the Whiskey Rebellion that nearly squashed the new government.
Stop the Feds ability to tax and the States won’t have to ask for money from the Fed’s they can ask the citizens of their state to finance roads, schools ect.
Before 1913 the Feds used excise taxes and tariffs except during the Civil war…then the 16th amendment thus we have income tax.
The Feds use the money to brow beat the states into submission…..take our money, play by our rules. The more money the states take the more control the Feds have.

That was the norm until only about 20 years ago. It caused no serious problems except in the towns of Moscow, Idaho and Pullman, Washington. Two college towns separted by 7 miles. Everyone drank in Wash until the bars closed at 1:00 then ran to Idaho where they closed at 2:00.

Age wasn’t the issue, it was the state imposed closing time.

As a young man we used to haul hay from Idaho to Nevada. We could have a cold beer in Idaho but not in Nev. We all hated going to Utah because they had 3.2 beer and you couldn’t buy drink on sundays.

Quite frankly there were no major problems with different state rules. The biggest problems came, and still do come, from state liquor taxes, creating potential “bootlegging” charges if you carry to much booze across state lines. But then the Const. explicitly gives the states the “power” (for you Michelle)to regulate taxes on booze.

Speed limits was another Federal blackmail issue but finally broke down, at least a little.

I think if you really looked objectively at the issues you raise you will find states could handle most. Fed govt is not really required that much. Even in the realm of water. You use interstate waterways as an example, yet the states managed these issues with laws stemming from statehood. Until the Feds decided they wanted to claim prior rights over the states, and to start controlling flow as well as quality. Various states execute memoranda of agreement on many interstate issues including air quality and water quality and quantity. They all have court access to enforce health and safety if located downstream. In fact this is really all the Fed control does. It tries to prevent interstate Litigation by providing standard rules. But the States can still enforce through legal action against the Fed or another State.

Same here, in NY during my wasted youth you only had to be 18. Friday nights, the NJ crowd would come over the G. Washington Bridge to do their drinking in Washington Heights. Funny thing, we had almost no problems. I’m sure the government believed otherwise. But you see, that was in the days when if the cops stopped you, they’d put you on a bus home and throw your car keys down the sewer.

Dad was a professional Bartender, 40 years in some pretty good joints, Hotel Astor for one. Friday nights, on his days off, we would watch the Friday night fights together. He drank exactly two beers. About 3 oz. of those beers went to me, as a kid, in my special glass.

Dad was of the opinion that “forbidden fruit” caused the problem. I never had a problem in my teens going without at a party. I raised my kids the same way. All four are adults now and when they don’t have to drive they know how to have a good time. Most other times they volunteer as designated driver. Dad, I believe knew more than the Federal Government, about alcohol, teenagers and responsibility.

The whole “forbidden fruit” analogy has stuck with me and is probably responsible for me leaning libertarian rather than traditional on the conservative scale.

I believe the answer lies within the American population, and their decission to stop the madness and then reverse the circumstances of the last 100 years.

In order to initiate the first step, (basically a PEACEFULL up-rising) I suggest that we first address what has transpired, and enflamed that transition to date. Here are a few to ponder:

1) Using what we learned this past week I think the first issue is the philosopy of the people, how it changed or was influenced, and the overall effects of that evolving philospohy. Since and before the Great Depression the majority of folks believed in working hard, saving money, paying cash, strength in the family, liberty, freedom, and that they got what they earned and managed. Our Grandfathers and Fathers dedicated themselves to providing for the family that they chose to raise. Each member of the household had responsibilities to the family and to themselves, and the parents were responsible for ensuring those responsibilities were met. The parents were also responsible for instilling a sense of rightousness, common sense, individuality, spirituality, love of country, and heritage. This utilitarian mentality started to dwindle with the events following the Depression, and with the onslaught of technology. We, as a nation, started to want more faster and better sooner. We got use to conveniences, elaborate comforts, living the good life and keeping up with the Jones’s. We wanted to work less and party more. We wanted and started justifying things and status and blah, blah, blah. (BTW: I am not stating that we need to return to a point in history where we first must learn to live like our Grandfathers and rid ourselves of those comforts we have come to enjoy. We just need to understand how those comforts unconsciously lulled us into the current state of mind.)

At the same time the Government began it’s physiological evolution in conjunction with the social evolution. The poeple started asking for more in both services and ammenities and so the government obliged while at the same time paralelled their influence. (I am not going to provide examples here as it would infinitely ellogate my comments. We can all come up with numerous examples from history)

So, in short we as a people brought this all on ourselves. Now the caveat is that at the time the majority all thought this was good, so I will conclude that was an example of physiclogical evolution.

The main point is this. To return us to a point of a form of Constitutional government we must first change or transgress our philosophy to that of a utilitarian state.

2) Because we transitioned mentally, as did the government, we became indifferent to governmental change. This is especially true as we gained in prosperity. That led to where we are today; an almost total lack of influence over our elected officials and the regimes that support them. For the most part our elected officials are far more influenced by the mechanisums and machines that put them there than those constituents that voted for them. Those elected official are therefore more fearful of their own kind (power and influence mogals) than of the people they are suppose to repressent. I will add too that they have become infinitely egotistical, believing they and those that support them are looking out for those too stupid to run their own lives (That’s basically us as a whole).

Until we re-instill the ideal that they serve the public which elected them, and at the same time realize there are repurcussions by not doing so, we will continue to lose more ground.

3) Lower and Supreme Court System is supportive to and only to those that appoint and enable them. They use the laws (Local, State, Federal and now International) to enforce and enfluence their will, which is in step with our elected oficials wished and influence. Every President has appointed, or attempted too appoint judges that parallel his mantra. It’s all about getting those things done that further enable control and influence. All courts have to date set presidents and mandated or changed laws based upon the desires of those who enabled them into their seat.

Until we accomplish 1 and 2 we cannot influence the courts.

4) Blame Game – Given the current political environment of a two party system we are faced with probably the most difficult step; creating a viable third party strong enough to battle the current two. As it stands the majority of folks do nothing other than point fingers at the other while offering little to no suggestions on how to reconstruct a failing government. This is mostly due to the fact that those in power have all the comforts and influence and are happy with how things are going. After all they are getting what they have campaigned for and are now living in their self loathing ideals.

It will take a great up-rising by the people to construct a third party as we will meet great opposition from the current parties, media, liberals, and those that don’t believe it will make a difference; the latter being the most influencial. I say that because change requires struggle, discipline, distain for the old, a fervor for the new and an unrelentless tenacity. Given the issues pointed out in point 1 I fear the self-loathing majority out there will at best be passive to the whole ideal.

5) Downed Economy – Given that the majority are fighting to keep their heads above water economically, are worried about employment, lost 50% of their retirement, not sure SS will be available, and generally caught up in their own survival, the timing is not good.

The general mode is that of worry and the majority can’t afford to divert much of what little focus they have left. It’s almost like we are all depressed and that depression prevents action. It’s the old adage “I’m just one person, what difference could I make?”

Regardless, the effort to change will be almost insurmountable, but things seemed insurmountable in 1774, 1929, 1941, etc, etc.

We need to unite as a party, organize, plan, fight (peacefully and legislatively) and become as tenacious as our forefathers.

Yes, that’s it, subterfuge and subversion. Bob Torricelli here in NJ never got indicted but the “gifts” he received worth only a few thousand dollars cost him his career. He was smart enough to stay just short of breaking the law but never figured the voters would force him to resign over their disgust with him.

California is already owned by the federal government. The only reason Mexico hasn’t just walked in and taken over is the income its receiving from the illegals sending money there to support their families. I would like to see individual states regain their rights, but don’t see that happening anytime soon.

Another concurrent strategy would be to preemptively assail State politicians to not ask for Federal Bailout of State shortfalls, and instead demand direct access to Federal Income Tax attributed to State citizens.

In other words, support the State in seizing Federal Income Tax at source. Make a law that requires all Federal Income Tax to be deposited into the ‘care’ of the State.

This would be incredibly aggravating and potentially dangerous to peace – but it would be decisive.

This would also be instructive, because it would REQUIRE that the Federal Government give a State-by-State breakdown of exactly what each State was contributing to the Federal coffers.

I would also like to see a State-by-State breakdown of exactly what Federal Money is GOING TO each individual State currently.

I strongly suspect that many of the States that pay in the least to the system are receiving the most from the government.

The most productive and most fiscally conservative States would logically be contributing a lot in taxes, whereas the least productive and most fiscally idiotic States are probably receiving a disproportionate amount.

I am sure there are also some States (Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc.) that contribute very little overall to the Federal coffers but also receive very little from the Feds. I could be wrong about that though….

Hmmmm… I don’t know what to think of that graph. According to what I saw, the most Liberal States such as CA, NJ, NY, MA, all paid in more than they received. Funny that they are also the worst off in this economic disaster. Could it be because they have the most rich folks per capita? I did see that they stopped at 2002, or maybe that was just my computer.

It is also interesting to note that the most liberal States (NY, NJ, IL, CA, MA etc.) who get the least amount of dollars compared to what they pay in have the largest discrepency in socio-economic classes within those States.

Each of those States has a large number of “Super-Rich” while also having a large number of “poor” while the “middle class” is largely squeezed out of those particular States.

Actually Peter We Freedom loving Govt hating states get back anywhere from 4 to 6 dollars of fed money for every dollar sent to Treasurey. California had a legitimate complaint about getting their fare share. They have been paying more than getting.

Now for the curve. Rocky Mtn states are dominated by federal lands. The Federal Cost to administer those lands is counted as money provided to the states. That is a distortion of the numbers.

But as an example of hypocrisy, that gun loving Tenth Amendment supporting Montana took all the Spendulous money it could get and then spread it around like fertilizer.

I share this with great sadness as I love my rocky mtns but the truth is the truth.
JAC

I won’t argue if the Fed Gov has too much power, that’s an opinion. I think the issue comes down to the 8th Amendment vs the 10th Amendment. The Fed Gov has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. In today’s world, what isn’t interstate commerce? Montana guns – did all the steel come from Montana? All the equipment to manufacture them? All the energy to produce them? All the vehicles to distribute them throughout Montana?

This is the Fed Gov argument. But it does seem extreme. The Fed Gov can regulate each of those things individually (steel, equipment, etc), but should they be able to regulate the final product they’re used to produce (guns)? If one of the guns crosses state lines? Or only distributed across state lines?

I will say using the guns example does add more emotion to the debate, which might be one reason why Montana selected it. I think you’d be better off starting with washers & dryers, cause who’s going to oppose that?? 🙂

Obama takes over the entire economy because obviously he knows how to run it better than anyone else (oh come-on, I had to start with this!!). Over the next few years things improve and he returns everything to the private sector. The economy starts hitting on all cylinders, the benefits trickle down and we’re all happy. Everyone have that warm fuzzy feeling now?!?!? See how good it feels!

Does this issue of states rights die out until the next big economic downturn? Or do you keep at it? Because in good economic times, the states have more power, or at least less Fed Gov dependency, than during bad economic times. So if you start now, you’re laying the foundation for future change (oops, maybe I shouldn’t use THAT word!). It may take a few Supreme Court defeats to get a state law that passes, but you gotta start somewhere.

This type of change does not happen over-night, unless you want to use violent revolution. If a couple of the new state laws hold up, it could cause a lot of people to look at issues impotent to them and ask why the Fed Gov is involved.

Very few people were talking about this during good economic times. This economic recession will eventually pass – be ready to take power back from the Fed Gov when the economy is healthy, because that’s when the states have more power and you will have the opportunity.

It doesn’t take a lot to start this. Just one law that holds up to the Supreme Court. Then others will follow. Remove the emotion – it’s not about states vs Fed, us against them. Just pass a nice clean thoughtful law at the state level. If the Supreme Court strikes it down, look at why and adjust the next law. You’ll get no where saying that the states don’t have a chance. What have you got to lose?

This isn’t about ONE BIG CHANGE where you overturn the Constitution. It’s about states asserting their constitutional rights. It’s not going to happen overnight. Every long journey starts with a single step. The sooner that first step is taken, the sooner the journey will be over.

Black Flag – I love the chess match reference! You don’t start out as a Grand Champion – you have to get beat a lot of times to learn the game. Time to start playing!

Sorry, I was responding to a few of the comments – got a little rambling and repetitive…

Pretty darn good post there, and I agree that the States have to start somewhere.

The Federal Government has assumed far too much authority in matters that should have devolved to the States or to the people, and it is at least heartening to see some States beginning to at least try to do something about that.

In some ways, I hope that the Federal Government attempts to absolutely CRUSH these efforts by the States to assert their Constitutional Rights, because then there would at least be some chance that the people would see just how out of control the Federal Government has become. Unfortunately, most of the people wouldn’t even understand what is going on or particularly care, so we might be better off is the States simply had a good amount of success on these issues.

“The economy starts hitting on all cylinders, the benefits trickle down and we’re all happy. Everyone have that warm fuzzy feeling now?!?!? See how good it feels! Does this issue of states rights die out until the next big economic downturn? Or do you keep at it?”

This is true with all major efforts to cause change in Wash. D.C. Govt knows this and will do everything they can to make us feel everything is OK because then we are happy and go away. But you can’t keep fooling mother nature. The time is coming when they can’t manipulate the economy to control our emotions. And I think this time the effort keeps going because it was the “spending” of our childrens future that ticked most folks off, it wasn’t the take over of banks.

“Because in good economic times, the states have more power, or at least less Fed Gov dependency, than during bad economic times.” This actually isn’t true. The Power of D.C. and dependency continues to grow. We suffer the illusion of reduced govt power as it takes three steps forward and then one back before taking the next step forward.

By the way Todd, Montana picked guns because they have facilities and resources needed to make guns and ammo. The idea stemmed from a court decision on Calif legallizing Pot. By putting Made in Montana stamp on the gun and ammo it addresses the courts’ argument that the Feds wouldn’t be able to identify Cal. pot if it crossed the border. I happen to think Light Bulbs would have been better but needs to be done in a bigger state.

Actually, rather than the gun or washer / dryer argument, how about toilets? Those 1.6 gallon things still don’t make people happy and the government toilet police are talking about reducing it further. Believe it or not, there is a flourishing market out there for used toilets. Seems that if a state manufacturers toilets for use within the state exclusively, they can bypass federal law.

“The issue comes down to the 8th Amendment vs the 10th Amendment. The Fed Gov has the authority to regulate interstate commerce.” No, it comes down to the court legislating.

The Supreme Court in 1942 sustained in Wickard v. Filburn a federal statute making it a crime for a farmer to eat his own corn that was subjected to price and production controls.

We are victims of a government which has twisted, stretched and subverted the meaning of a “contract” which guaranteed our “rights”. If they can make it illegal to eat your own corn, what is safe? They can look at any situation, and claim its for the greater good, including as ESOM wrote: Before long , the United States will be like Logan’s Run. Our children will have numbers and we won’t raise them. They will be raised in Government Nurseries. And our parents and us and everyone else will be “put down” at 30.

This isn’t about ONE BIG CHANGE where you overturn the Constitution. It’s about states asserting their constitutional rights.
Both the state and especially “the people” have had our Constitutionally guaranteed rights taken. Its not about changing the constitution, but about reinstating it.

Pretty good post Todd. The States do have to start somewhere and I hope Texas has started it. Our governor has turned down fed funds because of the long term strings attached to it. This is a State Right but there are those that feel that the State should not do this. I fear that the Feds will try to pass something to stop this but I hope there are enough people around that will fight this effort to erode State’s rights. But it starts with the first step. great post.

Correction: Farmers or anyone being threatened by wolves in Idaho CAN shoot them. They then need to preserve the scene and contact the Idaho Department of Fish & Game. Wolves are now delisted in Idaho and managed by the State, not Federal government. Go to http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/ for more info.

You know that was not the case from the beginning. Remember when the ranchers were told to call USFWS if stock was killed. Then govt hunters would find the culprits.

Remember when the Feds promised payment for livestock lost and then when they cut the fee paid because the predation was more than they promised?

Remember when the state threatened an end run if the feds didn’t cut the stockmen some slack on shooting known stock killers?

And they are managed by the State under consent of the Fed. The Fed can withdraw that agreement if they don’t like the results. Given the history in ID and MT I don’t think this will happen but we should also recognize that it could.

Hope all is well in your part of the world.
Has Henry’s Fork dropped yet or is it flooding also?
JAC

I have to be a bit nit picky here. I really hate the term “states rights”. I know what people mean when they say it, but it is a misnomer. I believe language is incredibly important–so do other people (see politically correct language). Language is the power to change thinking, which is the power to change the world.

Anyway, States do not have rights. No form of government has rights. Only people, individuals have rights, becuase they are from God or are inherent in the individual. Government has only powers and limits on powers. We should speak of the powers of the state vs. the powers of the federal. We need to be careful about using the word “rights” to apply only to individuals.

Why should states have powers that the fed is limited in or barred from using? Hopefully because the state governments are closer to the people, the people have more influence over them. Removing or limiting the federal government to it’s constitutional roles is worthwhile, but only if we all decide to get very involved in state and local government as well as national government.

I believe it can happen only if the people demand it. Sitting around waiting for politicans to change the status quo isn’t going to work. The power really does come from the people, even when they don’t realize it.

Actually Michelle the states do have rights, kind of. This was one of the great debates over ratification of the constitution. By stating that powers not listed were vested in the states or the people and by the fact that the states existed first, the constitution created the appearance that IT put the people and Fed govt above the states. Yet it was the States that authorized the Fed, not the people directly.

I agree that what you say about power vs. rights is the basis of our documents and we should emphasize the difference. I just wanted to point out that the circumstances of the Constitution create a little muddy water, if you will.

But, we must also admit that when we delegate “power” to govt we are delegating or giving up certain “rights” in favor of the govt’s “power”.

The New York Times is considered the “flagship” newspaper for America, if not the world. As such, they are required and advocate keeping the highest standards in the industry. In the last couple years, they have been hit with multiple scandals with journalist plagiarizing others work, and even making up stories.
Recently they have admitted to “killing” a story on ACORN days before the election. They had an inside source that they had been quoting as reliable, but
when she had information tying them to Obama, on election eve, it became a non-story.

Commentators like US or Glenn Beck are not required to adhere to these standards. They do not claim to be journalist, reporting news and facts as they know them.

Yes, and the NYT has taken some pretty big hits for those – including last week when a NYT reporter copied a paragraph from TPM (maybe I shouldn’t point that one out!!!) I wasn’t suggesting US Weapons had to do independent research, just sight significant sources that are used for articles.

US Weapons does talk about using facts, reason, and logic when writing and posting. So I’m just suggesting he maintain the standards he has set – and I think he has.

I’d like to see 10th amendment legislation passed here in Maryland. Does anyone know of any groups that I could get involved with here to help out? I just moved to Maryland from California, I’m hopeful there is a little less zeal for our federal overlords here, but you never know!

Some of the comments for this article were talking about what could speed up the process of shifting power back to the states. I think the coming bankruptcy by the feds, and massive inflation from their money printing will bring a big wakeup call to all Americans and could very well be the force that starts the ball moving back towards strong states rights. I think the growing tea party and libertarian movements will naturally start to shift power away from the federal government, but there will be a very scary moment when the economic disaster first happens where the federal government could try to seize power.

One thing that has always confused me is if for almost a century now we have had a federal government with almost no limits on its powers why do we even continue to have state governments. I would think that the statists would eventually start pushing to remove/reduce state governments, maybe that is their end game?

And as many of you have pointed out, it culminated with Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, in which he stated “The United States” instead of “These United States”, and such it was from that point forward.

NOWHERE in any of the 5 versions of Lincoln’s Gettysburg address is the term “united states” ever used. “that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”